Abstract
The article addresses the pervasive global challenge of delayed justice, emphasizing its role as a catalyst for widespread judicial reforms. The study defines international and national court approaches to reasonable trial durations by employing systematic and comparative legal methods. It delves into essential technology courts and parties use to ensure timely proceedings, categorizing associated risks and problems. The authors advocate for the multi-door courthouse system, illustrating its efficacy in reducing delays. Furthermore, the article classifies technologies facilitating reasonable trial durations, acknowledging and offering solutions for the challenges they present. This research contributes to the dynamic landscape of judicial reform, offering a holistic perspective on the multifaceted aspects of timely justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The empirical basis underpinning the conclusions of this study is fostered by the literature review, particularly concerning the global emphasis on the digitalization of justice. For instance, digital transformation has become a key political priority for the United Nations (United Nations Development Programme 2022) and the European Union (European Commission 2024).
Notes
Despite lacking formal endorsement in legal documents or specific definitions within the scientific literature, the term “JustTech” has found practical application as some companies actively engage in product development within the realm of justice. Notably, Justice Tech is described as technology-enabled innovation aimed at supporting individuals affected by the US criminal and civil justice system, as well as their families and the organizations that serve them (source: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/news-and-media/justice-tech-human-centered-approach/ Accessed 15 July 2023). Another perspective defines Justice Tech as innovative technology designed to enhance access to legal rights, improve outcomes for individuals involved in the justice system, and foster a more equitable administration of legal processes (source: https://justicetechassociation.org/ Accessed 15 July 2023). These operational definitions emphasize a human-centered approach and underscore the transformative potential of technology in pursuing justice-related goals.
References
Alsop T, Calio S, Greis P (2020) LEGAL TECH: A Statista dossier on the worldwide Legal Tech market, https://www.statista.com/study/84775/legal-tech. Accessed 16 July 2023.
Aouidef Y, Ast F and Deffains B (2021) Decentralized Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Blockchain Online Dispute Resolution Projects. Front. Blockchain 4:564551. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2021.564551
Ast F, George W, Kamalova J, Sharma A and Aouidef Y (2023) Decentralized justice: state of the art, recurring criticisms and next-generation research topics, Front. Blockchain, 6:1204090. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2023.1204090.
Baghi H, Holdsworth S (2022) Decentralized Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Blockchain Online Dispute Resolution Projects, https://www.driver-group.com/en/global/news/technology-in-dispute-resolution. Accessed 16 July 2023.
Blackaby N Partasides C Redfern A Hunter M Redfern (2015) International Arbitration: Student Version. 6. Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boog Ch (2015) The New SIAC/SIMC AMA-Protocol: A Seamless Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Process Tailored to the User’s Needs. Asian Dispute Review, 4:91-96.
Cabral, J.E., Chavan, A., Clarke, Th.M., Greacen, J., Hough, B.R., Rexer, L., Ribadeneyra, J. & Zorza, R. (2012) Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 26, 1: 243-323.
California Commission on Access to Justice 2020 Remote Hearings and Access to Justice During Covid-19 and Beyond, https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/40365/RRT-Technology-ATJ-Remote-Hearings-Guide.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Cappelletti M Garth B (1988) Acesso à Justiça, Porto Alegre: Sergio Antonio Fabris Editor.
CIArb Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct, 2009, https://www.ciarb.org/resources/guidelines-ethics/international-arbitration?page=2. Accessed 15 July 2023.
CNJ - National Council of Justice 2022 Report of Justice in Numbers, p. 194. https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/justica-em-numeros-2022-1.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2023.
Comment on State v. Loomis (2017) Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Warning Before Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing. Harvard Law Review, 130(5): 1530-1537. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-130/state-v-loomis/. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Davenport TH Kim J (2013) Keeping up with the quants: Your guide to understanding and using analytics. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Domenico Piers DE, M., Plavec K. (2021) Has COVID-19 Unlocked Digital Justice? Answers from the World of International Arbitration. Cambridge Law Review, VI, 1: 45-59.
Dube AB (2010) Assessment Study on Delayed Justice Delivery Final Report, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Final-Report-UNDP-Justice-delays-17072010.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Dyson J (2018) Justice, Continuity and Change, Hart Publishing, 2018.
ECtHR - Case of Gast and Popp v. Germany (2000) Application nº. 29357/95, pp. 16–17, §70 et. seq. https://jurinfo.jep.gov.co/normograma/compilacion/docs/pdf/CASE%20OF%20GAST%20AND%20POPP%20v.%20GERMANY.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ECtHR – Case of Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, Application nº 13972/88, 1993 §§ 37-44. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101614. Accessed 10 January 2024.
ECtHR – Case of Karalevičius v. Lithuania, Application nº 53254/99. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68732. Accessed 10 January 2024.
EctHR - Case of Kudła v. Poland, Application no. 30210/96, 2000, §133 and §160. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-58920. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ECtHR - Case of Marckx v. Belgium, Application nº.6833/74, 1979, § 41. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57534. Accessed 10 January 2024.
ECtHR - Case of Süssmann v. Germany, Application nº. 20024/92, 1996, p. 12 §§47 et. seq. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-57999&filename=CASE%20OF%20S%C3%9CSSMANN%20v.%20GERMANY.docx&logEvent=False. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ECtHR - Case of Tričković v. Slovenia, Application nº. 39914/98, 2001, p. 11 §64. https://jurinfo.jep.gov.co/normograma/compilacion/docs/pdf/CASE%20OF%20TRICKOVIC%20v.%20SLOVENIA.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ECtHR – Case of Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Application nº. 5856/72, 1978, § 31.https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57587. Accessed 10 January 2024.
ECtHR - Case Salesi v. Italy, Application no. 13023/87, 1993, p. 6 §24.https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-57814&filename=CASE%20OF%20SALESI%20v.%20ITALY.docx&logEvent=False. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Edel F (2007) ECtHR - Human Rights files, nº 16, The length of civil and criminal proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 2nd Ed. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRFILES/DG2-EN-HRFILES-16(2007).pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
European Commission (2023) Judicial Training: the right skills to embrace the digitalisation of justice, https://judicialtrainingdigitalisation.eu/. Accessed 24 February 2024.
European Commission (2024) Digitalisation of Justice, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-andpolicy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/digitalisation-justice_en. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Fabri M Langbroek PhM (2003) Delay in judicial proceedings: a preliminary inquiry into the relation between the demands of the reasonable time requirements of article 6, 1 ECHR and their consequences for judges and judicial administration in the civil, criminal and administrative justice chains, Working paper No 2, https://rm.coe.int/1680747b67 Accessed 15 July 2023.
Ferreira DB Farias BO (2021) Arbitragem Expedita na perspectiva doméstica e internacional. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual – RBDPRO, 29(115):139-168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.52028/RBDPro.v29i115.210205RJ.
Ferreira DB Giovannini C (2020) The multi-tiered and hybrid clauses of conflict resolution as a solution to times of uncertainty: some experiences of comparative law. Revista Eletrônica de Direito do Centro Universitário Newton Paiva, 42: 366-376.
Ferreira DB Gromova E (2023a) Digital Evidence: The Admissibility of Leaked and Hacked Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings. Int J Semiot Law (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10014-1
Ferreira DB, Gromova, EA (2023b) Hyperrealistic Jurisprudence: The Digital Age and the (Un)Certainty of Judge Analytics. Int J Semiot Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10015-0
Ferreira DB Severo L (2021) Multiparty Mediation as Solution for Urban Conflicts: A Case Analysis from Brazil. BRICS Law Journal. 8(3):5-29. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2021-8-3-5-29
Ferreira DB Giovannini C Gromova E Schmidt GdR (2022) Arbitration chambers and trust in technology provider: Impacts of trust in technology intermediated dispute resolution proceedings. Technology in Society, 68:101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101872.
Ferreira DB Gromova E Farias BO Giovannini C (2022) Online Sports Betting in Brazil and conflict solution clauses. Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution – RBADR, 4(7): 75-87 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v4i7.5.MIOLO_RBADR_07.indd
Filatova M (2021) Reasonable Time of Proceedings: Compilation of Case-Law of The European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing
Foreman G (1914) The Law's Delays, Michigan Law Review, 2(13):100-112
Fraser HS (1926) Sketch of the History of International Arbitration. Cornell Law Review, 11, 2: 179-208. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol11/iss2/3/. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Folke Bernadotte Academy and Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights: Handbook for Monitoring Administrative Justice. Warsaw: OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), 2013, p. 71. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/3/105271.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Gardner D (2007) Justice Delayed Is, Once Again, Justice Denied: The Overdue Right to Counsel in Civil Cases, University of Baltimore Law Review, 37: 5.
Green protocol for arbitration conference, 2022, https://www.greenerarbitrations.com/green-protocols/arbitration-conferences. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Gromova E (2018) Smart Contracts: An Effort to Define Legal Nature, Journal of Digital Economy and Law, 2: 22-29.
Gromova E Ivanc T (2020) Regulatory Sandboxes (Experimental Legal Regimes) for Digital Innovations in BRICS. BRICS Law Journal, 7(2):10-36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-2-10-36
Gromova EA Petrenko SA (2023) Quantum Law: The Beginning. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(1):62-88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.3
Guimaraes TA Gomes AO Guarido Filho ER (2018) Administration of justice: an emerging research field, RAUSP Management Journal, 53(3): 476-482. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2018-010
Gurbanov R, Hodzic A, Jean JP European judicial systems: Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 26, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2018. https://rm.coe.int/rapport-avec-couv-18-09-2018-en/16808def9c. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Hartung D, Brunnader F, Veith Ch, Plog Ph, Wolters T (2022) The Future of Digital Justice. Boston Consulting Group, Bucerius Law School, Legal Tech Deutschland. https://webassets.bcg.com/3a/4a/66275bf64d92b78b8fabeb3fe705/22-05-31-the-future-of-digital-justice-bls-bcg-web.pdf. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Hillebrandt M Novak S (2016) Integration without transparency? Reliance on the space to think in the European Council and Council Journal of European Integration 38 (5): 527–540.
Horowitz D.J. (2004) Technology, Values, and the Justice System: The Evolution of the Access to Justice Technology Bill of Rights, Washington Law Review, 1(79): 77-104.
Hussain A (2023) Court case held in the metaverse, https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/02/court-case-held-in-the-metaverse/ Accessed 15 July 2023.
IACHR - CASE GENIE LACAYO v. NICARAGUA, 1997, p. 21, §77.https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_30_esp.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
IACHR – CASE GRANIER Y OTROS v. VENEZUELA, 2015, p. 84 §255. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_293_esp.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
IACHR – CASE MONTESINOS MEJÍA v. ECUADOR, 2020, p. 33–35 §166–180. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_398_ing.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
IACHR - CASE QUISPIALAYA VILCAPOMA VS.PERÚ, 2015, p. 45, §45. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_308_esp.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014), https://www.ibanet.org/MediaHandler?id=e2fe5e72-eb14-4bba-b10d-d33dafee8918. Accessed 24 February 2024.
IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, 2020, https://www.ibanet.org/MediaHandler?id=def0807b-9fec-43ef-b624-f2cb2af7cf7b. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ICC (2022) Arbitration and ADR Commission Report on Leveraging Technology for Fair, Effective and Efficient International Arbitration Proceedings, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/arbitration-adr-rules-and-tools/icc-arbitration-and-adr-commission-report-on-leveraging-technology-for-fair-effective-and-efficient-international-arbitration-proceedings/ Accessed 24 July 2024.
ICC Commission Report on Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration of 2012, https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/icc-arbitration-commission-report-on-techniques-for-controlling-time-and-costs-in-arbitration-english-version.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
ICC Terms of Reference Model, 2018, https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2018/04/icc-model-terms-of-reference-english.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023.
International Arbitration Survey, 2021, https://arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2021-international-arbitration-survey/. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Katsh E Rabinovich-Einy O (2017) Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet Disputes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langford I (2009) Fair Trial: The history of an idea. Journal of Human Rights, 8(1): 37-52, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754830902765857.
Laukyte M (2023) Artificial Intelligence and Analytics: Dilemmas for Justice, Employment, and Human Rights. In AI and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law & Society Association (2021) Judges and Technology, https://www.lawandsociety.org/lsairc19/. Accessed 01 March 2023.
Mania K (2015) Online dispute resolution: The future of justice. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(1): 76-86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icj.2015.10.006.
Martindale J (2023) These are the countries where ChatGPT is currently banned, https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/these-countries-chatgpt-banned/ Accessed 16 July 2023.
Mason S Reiniger TS (2015) Trust between Machines? Establishing Identity Between Humans and Software Code, or whether You Know it is a Dog, and if so, which Dog?, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 21, 5:135-148.
McGrogan D (2018) The population and the individual: The human rights audit as the governmentalization of global human rights governance. International Journal of Constitutional Law – ICON, 16(4): 1072-1100. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy086.
McKenzie SO (2016) Improving International Investment Agreements edited by Armand de Mestral and Céline Lévesque. Hum Rights Rev 17: 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0395-5
Medvedeva M Wieling M & Vols M (2022) Rethinking the field of automatic prediction of Court decisions, Artificial Intelligence and Law 31: 195–212.
Mijatović D (2019) Justice in Europe facing the challenges of digital technology, https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/justice-in-europe-facing-the-challenges-of-digital-technology. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Moreira, J.I., Zhang, L. (2023) Assessing Credibility in Online Arbitration Hearings: Determining Facts and Justice by Zoom, Int J Semiot Law, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10046-7
Mustill MJ (1989) Arbitration: History and Background. Journal of International Arbitration, 6:44.
NY Convention 1958, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Nascimento LS Martins DGD (2022) Smart Contracts: Security Issues and Further Development In Brazil, International Journal of Law in Changing World, 2(1): 26-45.
Prins C (2018) Digital justice, Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4): 920-923, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.024
Reiling D, Contini F (2022) E-Justice Platforms: Challenges for Judicial Governance, International Journal for Court Administration, 13(1): 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445
Richards N. & Hartzog W.(2016) Taking Trust Seriously in Privacy Law, Stanford technology and Law Review, 19 (431): 431-472
Rose J (2023) Judge Used ChatGPT to Make a Court Decision, https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7bdmv/judge-used-chatgpt-to-make-court-decision. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Soyer J-C, Salvia M (1999) Art. 6, La Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme. Commentaire article par article. Ed. L-E. Pettiti, E. Decaux, P-H. Imbert, Economica, Paris.
Sander FEA (2021) Varieties of Dispute Processing, in Art Hinshaw, Andrea Kupfer Schneider, and Sarah Rudolph Cole (eds), Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Foundational Articles (New York, 2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 17 June 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513248.003.0066.
Sourdin A Bin Li McNamara DM (2020) Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis, Health Policy and Technology, 9(4): 447-453.
Segate VR (2021) Cognitive Bias, Privacy Rights, and Digital Evidence in International Criminal Proceedings: Demystifying the Double-Edged AI Revolution. International Criminal Law Review 21(2): 242–279 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10048
Shen X., Shirmohammadi S. (2008). Virtual and Augmented Reality. In: Furht, B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Multimedia. Boston, Springer: 962-967. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78414-4_253
Sourdin T (2015) Justice and technological innovation, Journal of Judicial Administration, 25: 96.
Szabo N (1998) Smart Contracts, http://old.computerra.ru/1998/266/194332/ Accessed 15 July 2023.
Sznaider N (2002) Money and justice: Toward a social analysis of reparations. Hum Rights Rev 3: 104–110 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-002-1009-y
Tobia KP (2018) How people judge what is reasonable. Alabama Law Review, 70(2): 295-359.
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976. https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/upicc-model-clauses. Accessed 15 July 2023.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status. Accessed 15 July 2023.
United Nations Development Programme (2022) e-Justice: Digital transformation to close the justice gap, https://www.undp.org/rolhr/justice/digitalization-and-e-justice. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Vecellio Segate R. (2020) Securitizing Innovation to Protect Trade Secrets Between “the East” and “the West”: A Neo-Schumpeterian Public Legal Reading, UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 37(1): 59-126
Von Schomberg R (2013) A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. Responsible Innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. J. Wiley: Chapter 3, pp. 51-74, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2428157. Accessed 24 February 2024.
Won K Ok-Ran J Chulyun K Jungmin S (2011) The dark side of the Internet: Attacks, costs and responses, Information Systems, 36(3): 675-705 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2010.11.003.
Zubizarreta T (2019) New France law bans use of analytics to determine judge behavior, https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/06/new-france-law-bans-use-of-analytics-to-determine-judge-behavior/#. Accessed 15 July 2023.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ferreira, D.B., Gromova, E. & Titova, E.V. The Principle of a Trial Within a Reasonable Time and JustTech: Benefits and Risks. Hum Rights Rev 25, 47–66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-024-00715-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-024-00715-w